An interesting debate is taking place in the UK on the proposition that “Renaissance man is dead. Education should be about training in subjects that will boost the economy.” Hosted by The Guardian newspaper and the thinktank Agora, the debate includes a couple of heavy hitters in A. C. Grayling, professor of philosophy at Birkbeck College, London, and Professor Adrian Monck, head of journalism and publishing at City University, London.

As is usual when very clever people debate each other, there are compelling arguments on either side. You can read what they have to say here.

By Renaissance Man, I take it that the organisers mean a well-rounded scholar who is pretty knowledgeable on just about everything. We might think of people such as Leonardo da Vinci and Nicolaus Copernicus as representing the ideal. Today, the term would probably refer to someone who has had an excellent education across disciplines.

In arguing that Renaissance Man is indeed dead, Monck says that since the 16th century “almost every single forward movement in advancing the position of humankind has come from science, technology and business”.

He sinks the boot into the arts and humanities by declaring that we have to give graduates “the ability to excel in the subjects we know will feed an information-based, technology driven global economy … we can be damn sure they are not liberal arts and humanities subjects”.

Grayling, on the other hand, argues that a good education “makes better workers, better voters, more thoughtful, informed, engaged and therefore responsible citizens, healthier and happier people, and a more mature, flourishing, open and progressive society”.

He adds: “All these benefits do not accrue from limiting education and equipping people with functional skills adapted to the eight hours a day they are destined to spend at the economic coalface.”

Who is right? Or are they both right and wrong at the same time? In other words, is there a balance that can be achieved between these extremes?

In a recent speech to the 6th Annual Higher Education Summit in Sydney, I argued that the skills graduates need today and in future are foresight, constructive dissent and creativity.

The speech, titled the Real Skills Shortage, can be read here. In it I give examples and set out the context for my argument that foresight, constructive dissent and creativity are the real skills that are in short supply.

I’m interested to know what skills you think a university education should provide.